Human rights are a set of legal and moral guidelines that are inherent to every person regardless of their wealth, colour, religion, country of origin, or any other status. This essay discusses whether or not Australia should have a bill of rights. Too many, a bill of rights seems like a logical course of action for Australia, however, as a nation, Australia has prospered without a bill of rights for many years, but is still considered one of the safest and happiest nation on Earth. This contradiction is not because Australian lawmakers do not prey on its citizens, rather it is because our current form of governance and unique international reputation limits our government from doing such.
A Bill of Rights is defined as being ‘a formal declaration
…show more content…
So at the international level, we have a suite of human rights guarantees and the Australian government has concomitant obligations. However, the problem with the international system is it lacks a "policing system" that can enforce those obligations.’ Although Australia does not technically have a Bill of Rights as of yet, we are still meeting 7 of the 8 major human right treaties. This puts us as a nation better off than most. The stimulus states that existing human rights laws are administered by commissions. The Commission was established in 1986 by an act of the federal Parliament. They are their own independent organization that reports back to the attorney general. These commissioners have some independence, but are appointed, not elected. It is possible that these bodies could be influenced by others, and could even become unrepresentative of the majority. Commissioners are generally people of higher education levels and represent a small cross section of society. Federal human rights laws must reflect international covenants in order to be valid under the Australian Constitution. If a Bill of Rights introduced, The privileged and wealthy of society would most likely have the opportunity to draft and interpret this Bill, not the oppressed, and that such a Bill would be written in such a way as …show more content…
This makes the adoption of a Bill of Rights difficult and extremely precarious in the fact that large swathes of the community are likely to be upset over certain changes made, especially that it is extremely difficult to change anything that's become entwined within the constitution. That is why New Zealand has adopted a statutory Bill of Rights (stimulus source), A statutory Bill of Rights can be repealed or altered by parliament. This means, that if for example society began to dislike a certain right within the bill, that it could actually be overturned or amended, meaning that the bill of rights could constantly evolve to the socio/economic climate around it, lessening the blow to stakeholders. A statutory Bill of Rights still isn't satisfying to some people, who argue it's no different from enacting legislation to protect people's rights, which is technically quite true. Australia is already meeting most of the major rights outlined by UN through legislation, so there would be no point wasting taxpayer dollars to draft a Bill that Australians already have in legislation. If Australia was to introduce a Bill of Rights, everyone would become a stakeholder as human rights are for all of us, It is fair to assume that a Bill of Rights is the only logical course of action for a nation as young as
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
Australia is now facing allegations from the Human Rights Council that it has detained children and sent back refugees, in breach of international law.
The Constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the newly formed United States government. But, what of the rights and obligations of its citizens? Starting in 1791 only two years after the Constitution was ratified the Constitution began to evolve and this process continues to this day. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights outlines the protections which citizens have from the government of the United States. The question raised in the title of this paper is; Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago still relevant today? Of course they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact we will examine each of the ten amendments rewrite each one using common everyday language of today and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. With out the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
The English Bill of Rights is an Act of the Parliament of England that deals with constitutional matters and sets out certain basic civil rights. This constitution was passed on December 16, 1689.The Bill was passed to declare laws and liberties of the people. Also the people wanted separation of powers and limits the of power to the king and queen. It guarantees the rights of enhancing the democratic election and to get more freedom of speech. No armies should be raised in peacetime, no taxes can be levied, without the authority of parliament. Laws should not be dispensed with, or suspended, without the consent of parliament and no excessive fines should imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. King James the 2nd, had abused his
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
One of Australia’s biggest moral wrongdoings that has been continued to be overlooked is the providing of safety for refugees. Under the article 14, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. It is not in anyway, shape or form illegal to seek asylum from maltreatment. Australia is obliged under international law to: offer protection, give support, ensure that any individual is not sent back unwillingly to the country of their origin. A report made by
The Bill of Rights and Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen are based on the same principles of natural rights; therefore each document is similar in protecting the people's natural rights. However, despite their similarities, their differences are apparent due to the social situations in which they were adopted. The Bill of Rights stood to protect the freedoms of each individual by establishing a democratic government. The French Revolution eliminated the hierarchy of class and established equality among men with the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. Several influences from past philosophers and documents assisted the frame work of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Rights and Citizen.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government, the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration, or bill, of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. The Bill of Rights did not come from a desire to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution, but rather from a fear of the powers of the new federal government.
The Bill of Rights was created because the states believed that the federal government would have too much power and they wanted to have more individual rights. Around this time the colonies had just been under the British rule, which oppressed the people and give them very limited freedoms. The states or the colonies were kind of afraid that this would happen all over again within this new government forming in the form of the Constitution. Most of the state at this time believed that the Constitution alone was enough but others felt that they needed more assurances. In the end, the federal government complied with these states and gave them the Bill of Rights.
Black, Hugo. 1960. “The Bill of Rights,” Reprinted from New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960 Online: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/gertz/hugoblack.htm. Downloaded 6/12/01
Kirby, M. 1997, ‘Bill of Rights for Australia – But do we need it?’, viewed 30 March 2014, < http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0>
An evaluation will be carried out in order to determine whether the enforcement of human rights standards in the United Kingdom (UK) has preserved or undermined the notion of parliamentary sovereignty. The human rights provisions along with their functions will be explored in order to reach a coherent conclusion. The UK has a constitutional arrangement described as wholly uncodified. In place of a single document are statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, treaties and constitutional principles. Constitutional principles consist of prerogative power, rule of law, separation of powers and parliamentary sovereignty.
In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human rights were devised (UDHR). Everyone has the right to liberty, life, freedom from fear and violence. The obligation to protect individuals and groups the States is required to shield them against human rights abuses (United Nations 2013) The Human Rights Act became effective in the UK in 2000. The purpose of the Human Rights Act is t...